Category: International

Saab and Another v Saudi American Bank: CA 29 Jul 1999

When serving an English writ on an oversea company’s premises in London, it was not necessary for the allegation to be in respect of business issues wholly or even substantially arising here, only that there is a real element of such business conducted here.

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 694A, Oversea Companies and Credit and Financial Institutions (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3179)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88968

Littrell v Government of the United States of America and Another (No 2): CA 24 Nov 1993

The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries arising from medical treatment which he had received at a United States military hospital in the United Kingdom while a serving member of the United States Air Force.
Held: Section 16(2) applied and therefore the case fell to be decided at common law. The acts complained of took place at a military hospital within the control of the United States Air Force. They involved only United States personnel. The operation of a military hospital, although requiring much the same skills as the operation of a civilian hospital, is a recognised military operation. The standard of medical care which the United States should afford its own servicemen was a matter within its own sovereign authority. The maintenance of the base itself was plainly a sovereign activity.
Hoffmann LJ said: ‘The context in which the act took place was the maintenance by the United States of a unit of the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom. This looks about as imperial an activity as could be imagined. But it would be facile to regard this context as determinative of the question. Acts done within that context range from arrangements concerning the flights of the bombers – plainly jure imperii – to ordering milk for the base from a local dairy or careless driving by off-duty airmen on the roads of Suffolk. Both of the latter would seem to me to be jure gestionis, fairly within an area of private law activity. I do not think that there is a single test or ‘bright line’ by which cases on either side can be distinguished. Rather, there are a number of factors which may characterise the act as nearer to or further from the central military activity . . Some acts are wholly military in character, some almost entirely private or commercial and some in between.’

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1993, Independent 02-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 82, [1994] 4 All ER 203

Statutes:

1951 NATO Agreement, State Immunity Act 1978 16(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Holland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83095

In Re B (A Minor)(Child Abduction: Consent): CA 9 May 1994

A six year old boy, had lived in Western Australia all his life. Shortly prior to his removal from Australia, the mother had left Australia to live in Wales. The maternal grandmother asked the father for permission to take the child to Wales to visit the mother. The father said he would not allow the child to leave Australia for longer than 6 months, and he insisted that legal arrangements be put in place for the child’s return. Accordingly, the father, maternal grandmother and the mother entered into ‘minutes of consent order’ whereby the parents would have joint guardianship, the father sole custody, and the grandmother would return the child to Western Australia by a particular date. However, the minutes of consent were not able to be registered and were therefore not legally enforceable in Western Australia. The father was persuaded by the mother’s assurances, and the grandmother’s provision of a bond, that they were sincere in their undertaking to return the child to Australia. The mother later admitted in evidence that she signed the agreement without any intention of cooperating with its terms. The trial judge found that the consent was obtained by deceit. The mother appealed.
Held: A consent to a child’s removal from a country which had been obtained by deceit was not to be relied upon readily. An order for the return of a child to its home country could be made without a formal order having been made in that country. A claim of duress failed.
Waite LJ said: ‘The central issue.
Her counsel, Mr Munby, has not sought to suggest that the mother’s conduct, or that of the maternal grandmother, can be defended on any equitable or moral ground. The judge’s finding that: ‘the mother, assisted by her own mother, cruelly deceived the father; and she now seeks to profit by her deceit’, is not challenged. The crucial issues are:
. (2) does the fact that the father’s consent to that removal was obtained by deception require him to be treated as though he had never consented at all, so as to render the removal a breach of his ‘rights of custody’?
. . Mr Munby contends that the father’s consent to F’s removal on 25 August 1993 was a genuine consent, however fraudulently obtained by the mother and maternal grandmother. The deceit may be reprehensible, but the fact that consent can (sic) given makes it impossible to say that the removal was wrongful in the sense of involving a breach of the father’s rights of custody. Mr Holman submits that the judge was right to hold that a consent obtained by deceit is no consent . .
. . As for the issue of consent, the question whether a purported consent to the child’s removal obtained from the aggrieved parent was or was not a valid consent is similarly to be determined according to the circumstances of each case. The only starting-point that can be stated with reasonable certainty is that the courts of the requested State are unlikely to regard as valid a consent that has been obtained through a calculated and deliberate fraud on the part of the absconding parent. That applies in my judgment whatever the purpose for which the consent is relied on — whether it be to nullify what would otherwise be considered a wrongful breach of rights of custody for the purposes of Art 3, or as a consent of the kind that is expressly referred to in Art. 13(a).’
Here again, the judge in my view reached a conclusion that is unassailable. The father’s consent to F’s removal last August was indeed obtained through a cruel deceit. It was cruel, moreover, not only to the father but to the child. F is only 6, but he is old enough to understand the assurance given to him when he left Australia that he would be returned after an interval to the only country he had ever known and the only parent who had given him continuous and consistent care; and vulnerable enough to suffer if that expectation is destroyed. The judge was right to hold that a consent so obtained was no true consent at all.’

Judges:

Waite LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jun-1994, Times 12-May-1994, Ind Summary 09-May-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 294

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – X v Latvia ECHR 26-Nov-2013
ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Failure to conduct detailed examination of all relevant points when deciding whether to return a child pursuant to Hague Convention: violation . .
Cited – VK and AK v CC CANI 19-Feb-2014
The child had been removed to NI by his mother. She had left him as a baby with her parents in Latvia, and they had cared for him under an informal arrangement for several years. M had taken the boy from the street in Latvia. The grandparents sought . .
Cited – In re K (A Child) SC 15-Mar-2014
Rights of Custody under Convention
The Court was asked as to what were ‘rights of custody’ within the Convention. M had at first left her child with the maternal grandmother in an informal but long term arrangement in Latvia when M moved to Northern Ireland. Later M removed the child . .
Cited – KK (A Child), Re Judicial Review FDNI 10-Jun-2013
Maternal Grandparents sought a declartion requiring the return to Latvia of their grandson, who had been brought forcibly to NI by his mother, he having lived with them in Latvia for several years. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.81714

Sberbank of Russia v Council: ECFI 13 Sep 2018

Restrictive Measures Adopted In View of Russia’S Actions Destabilising The Situation In Ukraine – Judgment
Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply – Error of assessment – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Right to property – Right to carry on an economic activity

Citations:

T-732/14, [2018] EUECJ T-732/14, ECLI:EU:T:2018:541

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International, Banking

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622590

Klyuyev v Council: ECFI 11 Jul 2018

Restrictive Measures Taken In View of The Situation In Ukraine – Freezing of Funds – List of Persons – Judgment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Retention of the applicant’s name on the list – Legal basis – Manifest error of assessment – Rights of defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Right to property – Right to reputation – Plea of illegality

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:433, T-240/16, [2018] EUECJ T-240/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Banking, International

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620026

Maduro Board of The Central Bank of Venezuela v Guaido Board of The Central Bank of Venezuela: SC 20 Dec 2021

Mr Maduro was re-elected President of Venezuela in May 2018. Mr Guaido was the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela. Mr Guaido claimed that the May 2018 election was flawed and that he was Interim President of Venezuela.
Both parties appointed different Boards to the Central Bank of Venezuela. These Boards issued conflicting instructions concerning nearly US$1 billon of Venezuela’s international reserves, held in the Bank of England’s vaults, and a similar sum held by Deutsche Bank.
The High Court ordered a trial to determine whether the Guaido Board or the Maduro Board had control over the disputed sums. The High Court found for the Guaido Board. The Maduro Board successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Guaido Board now appealed to the Supreme Court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
The recognition of foreign states, governments and heads of states is a matter for the executive. Courts in this jurisdiction thus accept statements made by the executive as conclusive as to whether an individual is to be regarded as a head
of state.
The distinction between the recognition of a government de jure and de facto is now unlikely to have any useful role to play before courts in this jurisdiction. Courts in this jurisdiction are bound to accept HMG’s statements which establish that Mr Guaido is recognised by HMG as the constitutional interim President of Venezuela and that Mr Maduro is not recognised by HMG as President of Venezuela for any purpose.

Judges:

Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen,
Lord Leggatt

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 57, [2021] WLR(D) 638, [2022] 2 WLR 167

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, International

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.671051

Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters): ECJ 19 Jul 2012

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – Contract with an embassy of a third State – Immunity of the employing State – Concept of branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 18(2) – Compatibility with Article 21 of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the third State

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-154/11, [2013] ICR 1, [2012] ILPr 41, [2013] CEC 452, [2012] WLR(D) 218, [2014] All ER (EC) 96, ECLI:EU:C:2012:491, C-154/11

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters) ECJ 24-May-2012
Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction – State immunity from jurisdiction – Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – Dispute concerning the validity of the dismissal of the applicant who had been employed as a driver in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, International

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616744

Medway Council v JB and Others: FD 26 Oct 2015

The court was asked as to the extent to which the wishes and feelings of children are relevant when considering whether the criteria for transferring jurisdiction pursuant to Art 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (BIIa) are met.

Judges:

MacDonald J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3064 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.554417

Ivleva v Yates: FD 4 Mar 2014

By an application Mrs Ivleva (formerly Yates) sought (i) recognition in this jurisdiction of a divorce granted in Ukraine in respect of her marriage to Mr Yates and (ii) the dismissal of divorce proceedings brought in this jurisdiction by Mr Yates.
Held: Justice to the husband required that recognition of the Ukrainian divorce be refused. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and all the circumstances, the wife did not take reasonable steps to give the husband notice of the Ukrainian proceedings. ‘this conclusion does not represent any lack of comity between the two jurisdictions. In my view the approach to an application of this kind should not be governed exclusively by pragmatic considerations, although these will weigh heavily. The exercise of discretion must also be informed by a sense of basic fairness when considering the obtaining of an order that is of great importance to most people. Plain dealing must count for something, and it would be undesirable if a party who is fully participating in proceedings in one jurisdiction can unilaterally start proceedings in another and then expect recognition of a divorce effectively obtained in secret’

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 554 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1986 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Duhur-Johnson v Duhur-Johnson FD 3-May-2005
The husband sought to stay divorce proceedings commenced here by his wife, saying that they had already been divorced in Nigeria. The wife said the Nigerian proceedings should not be recognised in English law.
Held: The cases established: 1) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Liaw v Lee (Recognition of Divorce) FD 3-Jun-2015
The applicant sought that the decrees nisi and absolute of divorce issued by the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam in favour of the respondent husband be refused recognition in England and Wales.
Held: The application was granted: ‘the husband . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, International

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.522289

Azarov v Council: ECFI 26 Apr 2018

Judgment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies to which the freezing of funds and economic resources applies – Maintenance of the name of the applicant on the list – Rights of the defense – Principle of good administration – Misuse of powers – Right of property – Right to freedom of enterprise – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:232, [2018] EUECJ T-190/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609299

River East Supplies Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court At Nottingham: Admn 28 Jul 2017

Privilege against self incrimination and application for production order by foreign state

Judges:

Simon LJ, Sir Kenneth Parker

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1942 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 528, [2017] 2 Cr App R 27, [2017] 4 WLR 135, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 482

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, International

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.591665

Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc: 29 Nov 2013

(Singapore – Court of Appeal) The ‘hard-line’ approach to goodwill is the law in Singapore was continued. meaning that a foreign trader who does not conduct any business activity in Singapore will generally not be able to maintain an action in passing off in Singapore. After reviewing the authorities in the UK, Australia and Hong Kong, the Court declined to soften the ‘hard-line’ approach, although it indicated that it might be prepared to do so in some respects if and when the right case came before the court. This approach this ‘draws a clear distinction between goodwill and reputation’.

Judges:

Sundaresh Menon CJ

Citations:

[2014] 1 SLR 911, [2013] SGCA 65

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.566018

Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: CA 30 Oct 2014

Judiciary 1. In these proceedings the appellants seek a declaration of illegality and damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the respondents in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and removal to Libya in March 2004. The claim includes allegations that they were unlawfully detained and/or mistreated in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Libya, and on board a US registered aircraft. It is alleged that their detention and mistreatment was carried out by agents of China, Malaysia, Thailand, Libya and the United States of America. The claim pleads the following causes of action: false imprisonment, trespass to the person, conspiracy to injure, conspiracy to use unlawful means, negligence and misfeasance in public office.
2. We must emphasise that the hearings below and on this appeal have been conducted on the basis of the pleadings lodged by the parties. As matters stand these are no more than allegations.
3. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the proceedings are barred by state immunity and the act of state doctrine.
4. We agree with the judge that state immunity does not bar these proceedings.
5. However, we also consider that the claim is not barred by the act of state doctrine because it falls within a limitation on grounds of public policy in cases of violations of international law and fundamental human rights. In coming to this conclusion we are influenced, in particular, by the following considerations:
(1) The allegations in this case – although they are only allegations – are of particularly grave violations of international law and human rights in the form of torture and unlawful rendition.
(2) The respondents in these proceedings are either current or former officers or officials of state in the United Kingdom or government departments or agencies. Their conduct, considered in isolation, would not normally be exempt from investigation by the courts. On the contrary there is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these allegations.
(3) This is not a case in which there is a lack of judicial or manageable standards. On the contrary, the applicable principles of international law and domestic law are clearly established.
(4) Unless the English courts were able to exercise jurisdiction in this case, these very grave allegations would go uninvestigated and the appellants would be left without any legal recourse or remedy.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Lloyd Jones, Sharp LJJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1394, [2014] WLR(D) 459, [2015] 2 WLR 1105, [2016] 1 All ER 121

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary Summary, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD 20-Dec-2013
The Claimants sought a declaration of illegality and claim damages arising from what they contend was the participation of the seven Defendants in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and illicit removal across state borders to Libya in March 2004. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, News, International

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.538185

Rahmatullah v The Ministry of Defence: QBD 19 Nov 2014

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3846 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Rahmatullah v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The claimant, a Pakistani national, detained by US Armed forces in Bagram in Afghanistan, sought a writ of habeas corpus. He had been first captured by British forces in Iraq in 2004, and transferred to US military under a Memorandum of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Human Rights, International

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.538898

Chaudhary v Chaudhary: 1985

The Pakistani husband pronounced bare Talaq in Sharia form before witnesses in Kashmir, although administered by Pakistan a territory to which the Muslim Family Ordinance 1961 did not apply. Recognition of the Talaq divorce had been refused by Wood J.
Held: The husband’s appeal was dismissed. Balcombe J said: ‘Prima facie, I would have considered that recognition of the validity of a divorce (which brings to an end the status of marriage) obtained by a procedure of which one party (the wife) has no notice, and no opportunity to take part is contrary to public policy. However, the specific provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of section 8(2)(a) of the 1973 Act make it clear that notice, and an opportunity to take part need not be given if the nature of the proceedings (as in the case of a Talaq) is such as to render such requirements unnecessary. However, where, as here, both parties were resident and domiciled in England at the date of the ‘bare’ talaq of 12th May 1978 – and in this respect the case is very different from Quazi – so that the only reason for the husband’s going to Kashmir for his divorce was to obtain the collateral advantage of preventing the wife from obtaining financial relief to which she would be entitled under an English divorce, then in my judgment, the recognition of such a divorce would be manifestly contrary to public policy. (I note, in passing, that because of the recent change in the law, it would not now be possible for the husband to obtain such a collateral advantage, even without recourse to the doctrine of public policy. It seems probable that there will now be many fewer attempts to rely on section 2(a) of the 1971 Act)’

Judges:

Balcombe J

Citations:

[1985] FLR 476, [1985] Fam 19

Statutes:

Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Zaal v Zaal FD 1982
The English wife had married a Dubai husband under muslim law. H pronounced talaq in Dubai. W, wanting to divorce him for adultery, said it was ineffective since she had not had notice of it.
Held: The Talaq was effective under Dubai law, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – H v S FD 18-Nov-2011
The court was asked whether for the purposes of English divorce and connected proceedings a Talaq pronounced by the respondent husband in Saudi Arabia and placed by Deed of Confirmation before the Sharia Court is entitled to be afforded recognition . .
Cited – Golubovich v Golubovich CA 21-May-2010
The court was asked to rule as to the recognition of a foreign (Moscow) decree of divorce obtained in breach of an Hemain injunction. The Russian proceedings had got to a stage requiring H positively to apply to prevent the decree.
Held: The . .
Cited – H v H FD 12-Dec-2007
The parties disputed the effect of a talaq divorce granted to H in Pakistan. W disputed that notice of the divorce had been served upon her. The notice was not now available.
Held: H’s evidence was credible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, International

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.450570

Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation: 25 Oct 1984

High Court of Australia – A solicitor’s duty of loyalty to his client’s interest, and his duty to respect his client’s confidences, have their roots in the fiduciary nature of the solicitor-client relationship, but may have to be moulded and informed by the terms of the contractual relationship.
Mason J said:’That contractual and fiduciary relationships may co-exist between the same parties has never been doubted. Indeed, the existence of a basic contractual relationship has in many situations provided a foundation for the erection of a fiduciary relationship. In these situations it is the contractual foundation which is all important because it is the contract that regulates the basic rights and liabilities of the parties. The fiduciary relationship, if it is to exist at all, must accommodate itself to the terms of the contract so that it is consistent with, and conforms to them. The fiduciary relationship cannot be superimposed upon the contract in such a way as to alter the operation which the contract was intended to have according to its construction.’
Mason J explained: ‘But entitlement to act in one’s own interests is not an answer to the existence of a fiduciary relationship, if there be an obligation to act in the interests of another. It is that obligation which is the foundation of the fiduciary relationship, even if it be subject to qualifications including the qualification that in some respects the fiduciary is entitled to act by reference to his own interests. The fiduciary duty must then accommodate itself to the relationship between the parties created by their contractual arrangements. And entitlement under the contract to act in a relevant matter solely by reference to one’s own interests will constitute an answer to an alleged breach of the fiduciary duty. The difficulty of deciding under the contract when the fiduciary is entitled to act in his own interests is not in itself a reason for rejecting the existence of a fiduciary relationship, though it may be an element in arriving at the conclusion that the person asserting the relationship has not established that there is any obligation to act in the interests of another.’

Judges:

Mason J

Citations:

(1984) 156 CLR 41, (1984) 55 ALR 417, (1984) 58 ALJR 587, 4 IPR 291, [1984] HCA 64

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC 25-Nov-1992
There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
Cited – Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood HL 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for him, where he was to contract with another client of the same solicitor in a land development. The solicitor failed to disclose that the other client had convictions for dishonesty, and . .
Cited – Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway CA 22-Nov-2005
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the . .
Cited – Halton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd ChD 9-Sep-2005
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Legal Professions

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.222538

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa) (Liberia v South Africa) (second phase): ICJ 18 Jul 1966

ICJ The South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), which relate to the continued existence of the Mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of South Africa as Mandatory thereunder, were instituted by Applications of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia filed in the Registry on 4 November 1960. By an Order of 20 May 1961 the Court joined the proceedings in the two cases. The Government of South Africa raised preliminary objections to the Court’s proceeding to hear the merits of the case, but these were dismissed by the Court on 21 December 1962, the Court finding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the dispute.
In its Judgment on the second phase of the cases the Court, by the President’s casting vote, the votes being equally divided (seven-seven), found that the Applicant States could not be considered to have established any legal right or interest in the subject matter of their claims and accordingly decided to reject them.
‘we consider that the norm of non-discrimination or non-separation on the basis of race has become a rule of customary international law . . .’

Citations:

[1966] ICJ Rep 6, 293

Links:

ICJ

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.220681

Viskase Ltd and Another v Paul Kiefel GmbH: CA 30 Mar 1999

The place of performance, and the breach of contract occurred at the place where goods were to be delivered and when they were to fulfil their purpose, not at the point when it was assembled. Here a machine delivered to England was to be judged under English law.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

International

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90180

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Kaur (Justice, Intervener) Case C-192/99: ECJ 8 Mar 2001

The applicant had a British Passport, but had a British overseas citizen without a right of residence. Temporary leave to stay was renewed but eventually terminated. She claimed to be a citizen and therefore under European law entitled to freedom of movement within the EU. When the UK became a member of the EU it declared how it wished nationality to be defined. This was renewed and altered with the new Immigration Act. Customary international law allowed states to have different classes of citizenship with different rights, and her rights were determined by reference to the 1982 declaration.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981, ECTreaty Art 17 and 18

Immigration, European, International

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88639

Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA and Others: PC 21 Jul 1994

Lex loci delicti (the law of the jurisdiction in which the act complained of took place) can exceptionally be used when the lex fori (the jurisdiction formally assigned) gives no remedy. In the case of a claim under a foreign tort, the double actionability exception may be applied to allow use of the lex loci delicti. Lord Slynn: ‘Their Lordships, having considered all of these opinions, recognise the conflict which exists between, on the one hand, the desirability of a rule which is certain and clear on the basis of which people can act and lawyers advise and, on the other, the desirability of the courts having the power to avoid injustice by introducing an element of flexibility into the rule. They do not consider that the rejection of the doctrine of the proper law of the tort as part of English law is inconsistent with a measure of flexibility being introduced into the rules. They consider that the majority in Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 recognised the need for such flexibility. They accept that the law of England recognises that a particular issue between the parties to litigation may be governed by the law of the country which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties. They agree with the statement of Lord Wilberforce, at pp 391-392, . . as to the extent and application of the exception. They accept, as he did, that the exception will not be successfully invoked in every case or even, probably, in many cases and, at p 391H, that ‘The general rule must apply unless clear and satisfying grounds are shown why it should be departed from and what solution, derived from what other rule, should be preferred.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn

Citations:

Gazette 09-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 26-Sep-1994, Times 21-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 190

Citing:

Cited – Warren v Warren 1972
(Australia) The plaintiff was injured in a car accident while on a visit to New South Wales, where she had no right of action in tort against her husband. She began her action in Queensland, where she was ordinarily resident and domiciled where such . .
Appeal from – Red Sea Insurance Co Ltd v Bouygues SA and Others 1993
Hong Kong . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85926

Re N (A Minor): CA 22 Feb 1993

The application of Hague Convention to child abduction was a statutory function. If the facts fell within the statute, the order should be made. In such cases the interests of the particular child may not be paramount because of the need to protect other children by enforcement of the Act. Such proceedings are neither adversarial, nor inquisitorial, but sui generis

Citations:

Ind Summary 22-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85840

Petrograde Inc and Another v Smith and Others: QBD 8 Dec 1998

The time when a co-defendant’s domicile fell to be considered under the convention was the time when process was originated not when a co-defendant was added, whether by re-issue or by service of amended writ.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1998

Statutes:

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Brussels Convention Art 6

International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84689

Oxfordshire County Council v S (A Child) (Care Order): FD 11 Nov 1999

An interim care order, whether made here or in a competent court abroad, had the effect of discharging any pre-existing orders for parental responsibility. A non-parent recipient of such a custody or parental responsibility order ceased to have such responsibility on the making of the interim care order.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 8

Children, International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84513

P v P (Diplomatic Immunity Jurisdiction): FD 2 Mar 1998

A father returning home at end of a diplomatic posting, on his government’s orders had state (not diplomatic) immunity to take the child home with him.

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

Cited by:

Appeal from – P v P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction) CA 25-Mar-1998
A declaration as to abduction will not be made if the only real purpose of the application was to delay a foreign court seised of the matter making a decision. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Children

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84525

Lukowlak v Unidad Editorial SA (No 1): QBD 23 Jul 2001

When a court considered a defamation contained in a multi-jurisdictional publication, and the question of whether there might be any duty to publish, it should recognise and respect the global nature of modern publications, with more widely acknowledged duties to report information, and a public having a more widely recognised right to receive the same information. The court should accordingly avoid entering into a debate using fine distinctions between the laws of the several jurisdictions in which the material had been published.
The reasonable reader is ‘now perceived by the courts, both domestic and international, as having stronger stomachs and more discriminating judgment than was traditionally recognised’.

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-2001, [2001] EMLR 46

Cited by:

Cited – Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd and Others QBD 9-Apr-2014
The claimant alleged defamation by other contestants at the time when she was participating in the defendants’ TV show, Big Brother. The defendants had broadcast the material. The defendant now sought a ruling that the words complained of were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83241

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Advice and Opinion by Un): ICJ 18 Jul 1996

The threat or actual use of nuclear weapons must only be in accordance with treaties, but if so was not unlawful.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1996, (1996) 110 ILR 161

Citing:

Cited – Legality of the Use by A State of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Adv Opinn by Who) ICJ 18-Jul-1996
Advisory opinion from ICJ can only be given where in remit of requesting body. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83020

Legality of the Use by A State of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Adv Opinn by Who): ICJ 18 Jul 1996

Advisory opinion from ICJ can only be given where in remit of requesting body.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-1996

Cited by:

Cited – Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Advice and Opinion by Un) ICJ 18-Jul-1996
The threat or actual use of nuclear weapons must only be in accordance with treaties, but if so was not unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83021

In Re J (Minor) (Isle of Man: Adoption): FD 7 Jun 2000

Because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom under the Act, proceedings for an adoption of a child from the Isle of Man were an inter-country adoption, and so had to be commenced in the High Court. There was, however, nothing to prevent the High Court transferring the case to the County Court in appropriate situations. The need arose even though the Act envisaged a child subject to a freeing order being placed with a Manx couple with a view to adoption.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jun-2000, Times 07-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Adoption Act 1976 56

Adoption, Children, International

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81961

In Re Immunity of Special Rapporteur: ICJ 19 May 1999

A special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers enjoyed the full privileges and immunity from suit of any kind, including for the contents of an interview which might otherwise be defamatory.

Citations:

Times 19-May-1999

Statutes:

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations

International

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81944

Gulf Bank Ksc v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd: QBD 24 Aug 1993

A foreign contract was within the purview of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The presence of an indemnity clause which was expressly subject to UK law made the rest of the contract also subject to UK law. The indemnity clause was still part of the contract despite government decree.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 30-Aug-1993, Times 24-Aug-1993

Litigation Practice, International, Contract

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81090

Habib Bank Ltd v Ahmed: QBD 2 Nov 2000

The fact that public policy would sometimes allow the refusal of registration of a foreign judgment did not provide an opportunity to a party here to re-litigate the issue when he had had an opportunity to do so before the foreign court and had failed to take it. Foreign judgments may not be registered if they could be shown to have been obtained by fraud. Here documents were prepared in accordance with Islamic practice, and there was no evidence that any such fraud existed.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933

International, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81110

Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait and Others (No 2): CA 29 Mar 1996

The claimant alleged that he had suffered torture in a security prison in Kuwait, and he obtained leave to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Government of Kuwait, and on three individuals, one of whom at least was served, on the ground that he had in consequence suffered psychological damage after returning to and while in England. The Government of Kuwait applied to set aside the service on it, and for a declaration that it had immunity under s.1(1) of the 1978 Act.
Held: The State of Kuwait was entitled to state immunity from a claim for damages for torture. The Act was a comprehensive code. Although international law prohibited torture, no express or implied exception to immunity existed in cases of torture. The draftsman of the State Immunity Act must have been well aware of the numerous international conventions covering torture (although he could not, of course, have been aware of the convention against torture in 1984). If civil claims based on acts of torture were intended to be excluded from the immunity afforded by section 1(1) of the Act of 1978, because of the horrifying nature of such acts, or because they are condemned by international law, it is inconceivable that section 1(1) would not have said so.
Ward LJ: (As to the 1978 Act) ‘Unfortunately, the Act is as plain as plain can be. A foreign state enjoys no immunity for acts causing personal injury committed in the United Kingdom and if that is expressly provided for the conclusion is impossible to escape that state immunity is afforded in respect of acts of torture committed outside this jurisdiction.’
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘At common law a sovereign state could not be sued at all against its will in the courts of this country. The 1978 Act, by the exceptions therein set out, makes substantial inroads into this principle. It is inconceivable, it seems to me, that the draftsman, who must have been well aware of the various international agreements about torture, intended section 1 to be subject to an overriding qualification.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ, Ward LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1996, (1996) 107 ILR 536

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2001
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – McElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2001
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1) HL 22-Nov-1998
The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution.
Cited – Aziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Augusto Pinochet Ugarte and In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review Regina v Evans (Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate) Admn 28-Oct-1998
A provisional warrant had been issued by a magistrate for the arrest of the former president of Chile when visting London. The arrest had been in response to an extradition request from a judge in Spain and related to allegations of criminal acts by . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Constitutional

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.77703

Mellenger v New Brunswick Development Corporation: CA 1971

An entity which is constituted in such a way that its purpose is to assist, promote and advance the industrial development, prosperity and economic welfare of the area in which it operates, can be seen as effectively carrying out government policy in the way that a government department does and therefore to assume the position of an organ of government. The New Brunswick Development Corporation was an arm or the alter ego of the Government of New Brunswick which was a sovereign state and so it was entitled to immunity from suits in the courts of this country. A state within a federal state may in certain circumstances partake of the sovereignty of the state as a whole and obtain State Immunity. Against the background of the 1872 Act, the mere fact that New Brunswick did not have control over international relations did not mean that for that reason alone that it could not be entitled to state immunity.
Lord Denning MR: ‘It was suggested by Mr Kempster that the Province of New Brunswick does not qualify as a sovereign state so as to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity. But the authorities show decisively the contrary. The British North America Act 1867 gave Canada a federal constitution. Under it the powers of government were divided between the dominion government and the provincial governments. Some of those powers were vested in the dominion government. The rest remained with the provincial governments. Each provincial government, within its own sphere, retained its independence and autonomy directly under the Crown. The Crown is sovereign in New Brunswick for provincial powers, just as it is sovereign in Canada for dominion powers: see Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v Receiver-General of New Brunswick [1892] A.C. 437. It follows that the province of New Brunswick is a sovereign state in its own right, and entitled, if it so wishes, to claim sovereign immunity’.
Salmon LJ: ‘There can be no doubt I think, that the Federal Government of New Brunswick is sovereign within its own sphere of influence. That appears from the Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v Receiver General New Brunswick [1892] AC437 and also from Hodge v The Queen (1883) 9 App Cas 132). ‘

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ, Phillimore LJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 604, [1971] 2 All ER 593

Statutes:

British North America Act 1867

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Alamieyeseigha, Regina (on the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 25-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that as Governor and Chief Excecutive of Bayelsa State in Nigeria he had sovereign immunity. The Foreign Office had issued a certificate that the defendant was not a Head of States under the 1978 Act. The A-G of Bayelsa had . .
Cited – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo; Glencore Energy UK Limited, Sphynx UK Limited, Sphynx (BDA) Limited, Africa Oil and Gas Corporation, Cotrade SA (Third Parties) ComC 28-Nov-2005
The claimant had taken an assignment of debts owed by the defendant, and obtained judgment in US$121m. They sought to enforce the judgment and obtained third party debt orders against the parties listed.
Held: Officers in the third party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, International

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.235345

Bekleyen v Land Berlin: ECJ 21 Jan 2010

EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council Right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which that child has completed a vocational training course Start of the vocational training course after the parents have permanently left that Member State

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-462/08, [2010] 2 CMLR 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Bekleyen v Land Berlin ECJ 29-Oct-2009
ECJ (External Relations) Opinion – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Free movement of workers Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council The right of the child of a Turkish worker . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608659

National Iranian Tanker Company v Council: ECJ 11 Apr 2018

External Relations – Restrictive Measures v Iran – Opinion – Appeal – Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Action for annulment – Re-listing decision following annulment of initial listing decision by EU Courts on the merits – Article 266 TFEU – General principles of EU law – Fundamental rights – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:227, [2018] EUECJ C-600/16P – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608642

Re W: CA 27 Mar 2018

The parent against whom an application had been made for the return of children said to have been abducted to a foreign jurisdiction said that she anticipated being refused a visa to be allowed to enter the USA to return them under a humanitarian parole visa. If the father left the USA to collect them, it was unlikely that he would be allowed to return.

Judges:

Moylan, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 664, [2018] WLR(D) 192

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Hague Child Abduction Convention

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608367

Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott: CA 31 Jan 2018

The court was asked whether the claimant is, as the judge below held, entitled to an anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing foreign proceedings in view of an arbitration agreement between them governed by the law of England and Wales and the arbitration which has been completed in London pursuant to that agreement.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, International

Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604147

Vilca and Others v Xstrata Ltd and Another: QBD 19 Jan 2018

Claims for personal injuries suffered during a protest in Peru about a company whose parent company was registered within the UK. The court now heard submissions as to the Peruvian law of limitation.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 27 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Limitation, International

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603732

Re GP (A Child): CA 30 Oct 2017

The court was asked whether the child GP, who is the 11-year-old daughter of an Italian father and a Latvian mother, should be returned to Italy (which is agreed to have been her country of habitual residence at the relevant time) following her wrongful abduction from Italy to England by her mother in February 2016.

Judges:

King, Lindblom, Henderson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1677

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, International

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598463

BelTechExport v Council: ECFI 27 Sep 2017

(Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive Measures Against Belarus : Judgment) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Belarus – Freezing of funds – Suspension of measures – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of defence – Right to be heard – Error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:669, [2017] EUECJ T-765/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595435

Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd v Council of The European Union: ECFI 18 Sep 2017

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive Measures : Judgment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds – List of the persons, entities and bodies acting in breach of the embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list

Citations:

T-107/15, [2017] EUECJ T-107/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Banking, International

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595420

Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 1): ECJ 15 Jul 2010

ECJ (Judgment) Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Provisional, including protective, measures – Recognition and enforcement
An order made under article 20 is not enforceable in another member state

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-256/09, [2010] ILPr 48, ECLI:EU:C:2010:437, [2011] Fam 254, [2011] 3 WLR 982

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Purrucker v Valles Perez ECJ 20-May-2010
EU (Opinion) Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility Provisional measures Custody. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Purrucker v Valles Perez (No 2) ECJ 9-Nov-2010
Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Lis pendens – . .
Cited – In re J (A Child) SC 25-Nov-2015
The court considered for the first time the scope of the jurisdiction conferred by article 11 of the 1996 Convention ‘in all cases of urgency’ upon the Contracting State where a child is present but not habitually resident. F had obtained an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593647

Kent CC v C and Others: FC 28 Jul 2016

Consideration of the procedure involved in returning two children to Slovakia, following a determination by this court on 25 May 2016 that they do not have habitual residence here. As a consequence, this court does not have jurisdiction to determine the care proceedings that had been issued by the Local Authority (LA).

Judges:

Theis DBE J

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kent CC v C and Others FC 25-May-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592324

Kent CC v C and Others: FC 25 May 2016

Citations:

[2016] EWFC 72

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Kent CC v C and Others FC 28-Jul-2016
Consideration of the procedure involved in returning two children to Slovakia, following a determination by this court on 25 May 2016 that they do not have habitual residence here. As a consequence, this court does not have jurisdiction to determine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592323

Badica and Kardiam v Council: ECFI 20 Jul 2017

(Judgment) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities with regard to the situation in the Central African Republic – Freezing of funds – Initial registration decision – List of persons and entities to which the freeze applies Funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the names of the applicants – Implementation of a UN resolution – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defense – Presumption of innocence – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:532, [2017] EUECJ T-619/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International, Natural Justice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.590466

Safa Nicu Sepahan Co v Council: ECJ 30 May 2017

ECJ External Relations : Common Foreign and Security Policy External Relations – Judgment – Appeal – Action for damages – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran – List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Material damage – Non-material damage – Error of assessment in respect of the amount of compensation – None – Cross-appeal – Conditions governing the incurring of the European Union’s non-contractual liability – Obligation to substantiate the restrictive measures – Sufficiently serious breach

Citations:

C-45/15, [2017] EUECJ C-45/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:402

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584348

United States of America v Nolan: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 98/59/EC – Protection of workers – Collective redundancies – Scope – Closure of an American military base – Information and consultation of workers – Time at which the consultation obligation arises – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta P

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-583/10, [2013] 1 CMLR 32, [2012] IRLR 1020, [2012] WLR(D) 280, [2013] ICR 193

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Directive 98/59/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – United States of America v Nolan ECJ 22-Mar-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Directive 98/59/EC – Admissibility – Protection of workers – Collective redundancies – Information and consultation of workers – Closure of a US military base – Scope – Time at which the obligation . .
At EAT – United States of America v Nolan EAT 15-May-2009
EAT REDUNDANCY: Collective consultation and information / Protective award
An Employment Tribunal held that the USA was in breach of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act . .
At CA (1) – United States of America v Nolan CA 9-Nov-2010
The claimant had sought a protective award under the 1992. She had been a civilian employee at a base operated by the appellant which it closed. She sought to sue as an employee representative, saying that the appellant had failed to consult its . .

Cited by:

At ECJ – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
At ECJ – The United States of America v Nolan CA 4-Feb-2014
The employee was made redundant from working at a US watercraft repair base. She complained that on the base closing the appellant had failed to consult with her as employee representative. The appellant denied that obligation. After a reference to . .
At ECJ – United States of America v Nolan ECJ 22-Mar-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Directive 98/59/EC – Admissibility – Protection of workers – Collective redundancies – Information and consultation of workers – Closure of a US military base – Scope – Time at which the obligation . .
At ECJ – United States of America v Nolan CA 24-Nov-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, International

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584194

Gray (orse Formosa) v Formosa: CA 1963

Lord Denning MR said: ‘Suffice it to say that I am content to decide this case on the simple basis that the courts of this country are not compelled to recognise the decree of the court of another country when it offends against our ideas of justice.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1963] P 259

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Golubovich v Golubovich CA 21-May-2010
The court was asked to rule as to the recognition of a foreign (Moscow) decree of divorce obtained in breach of an Hemain injunction. The Russian proceedings had got to a stage requiring H positively to apply to prevent the decree.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.450574

Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd: ComC 11 Apr 2017

Two applications by the claimant, which by these proceedings seeks to enforce under the New York Convention and s.101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 an arbitration award dated 14 November 2014 in an ICC arbitration seated in Paris.

Judges:

Andrew Baker J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 797 (Comm), [2017] WLR(D) 267

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, International

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581957

Unaenergy Group Holding Pte Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of The Serious Fraud Office: Admn 29 Mar 2017

This case raises for consideration the question, amongst others, whether the common law duty of disclosure or candour attaching to an applicant for a domestic search warrant is applicable, in modified form, to an authority requesting assistance by way of a Letter of Request from a foreign authority, pursuant to the provisions of s.7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 600 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 230

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, International

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581620

Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstrasse: ECJ 29 Mar 2017

Judgment – Preliminary reference – Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey – Decision No 1/80 – Article 13 – Clause standstill – Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker belonging to the regular market employment of a member State – possible existence of an overriding public interest justifying new restrictions – effective management of migration flows – Obligation on third-country nationals aged under 16 to hold a residence permit – Proportionality

Citations:

C-652/15, [2017] EUECJ C-652/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:239

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581308

Haswani v Council: ECFI 22 Mar 2017

ECJ (External Relations : Common Foreign and Security Policy External Relations : Common Foreign and Security Policy – Judgment) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds – Adaptation of the application – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defense – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Non-contractual liability

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:200, [2017] EUECJ T-231/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581050

Zulfikarpasic v Gajer: ECJ 9 Mar 2017

ECJ (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters – Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order – Concept of ‘court’ – Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ – Authentic instrument

Citations:

C-484/15, [2017] EUECJ C-484/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Litigation Practice, International

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580730

Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Thakrar: CA 1974

The obligation in international law owed by one state to another to admit its nationals expelled by another could not be relied on by an individual, conflicted with immigration legislation and in any event only arose if the national had nowhere else to go.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1974] 1 QB 684

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Immigration

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.186645

Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation.
Held: To enforce the order would be an unjustifiable interference with the right to respect for the private and family lives of mother and child, protected by article 8. The Court observed that ‘the Convention cannot be interpreted in a vacuum but must be interpreted in harmony with the general principles of international law. Account should be taken . . of ‘any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties’ and in particular the rules concerning the international protection of human rights’. The Court noted that ‘there is currently a broad consensus – including in international law – in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, their best interests must be paramount’.
In a Hague Convention case an in-depth examination of the issues was mandated by the parties’ Article 8 ECHR rights to respect for family and private life.
The Court explained the concept of the child’s best interests: ‘The child’s interest comprises two limbs. On the one hand, it dictates that the child’s ties with its family must be maintained, except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit. It follows that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family (see Gnahore, cited above, para 59). On the other hand, it is clearly also in the child’s interest to ensure its development in a sound environment, and a parent cannot be entitled under article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development (see, among many other authorities, Elsholz v Germany (2002) 34 EHRR 58 at [50], and Marsalek v the Czech Republic, no 8153/04, [2006] ECHR 321, at [71], 4 April 2006).’

Citations:

41615/07, [2010] ECHR 1053, (2010) 28 BHRC 706, [2011] 1 FLR 122, [2011] 2 FCR 110, [2010] Fam Law 1273, (2012) 54 EHRR 31

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Cited – Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) SC 10-Jun-2011
Two children were born in Norway to a British mother (M) and Norwegian father (F). Having lived in Norway, M brought them to England to stay, but without F’s knowledge or consent. M replied to his application for their return that the children would . .
Cited – DT v LBT FD 7-Dec-2010
. .
Doubted – Re S (A Child) SC 14-Mar-2012
The mother appealed against an order confirmed by the Court of Appeal for the return of her child to Australia. The mother and father had cohabited in Sydney, before M returned with S without F’s consent or the permission of an Australian court. The . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Cited – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .
Cited – Makhlouf v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
(Northern Ireland) The appellant (born in Tunisia) was made subject to a deportation order. He had married a UK citizen and they had a child. After moving to the UK, at various times, the relationship broke down and he was convicted of several . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, International

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.420469

S v S (Child abduction) (Child’s views): 1992

Where a parent objects to the child being returned under the Act to a home country on the basis of the child’s objections, if the objections result solely from a desire to remain with the abducting parent, who in turn does not wish to return, then little or no weight should be attached to the child’s objection.

Citations:

[1992] 2 FLR 492

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AF v M B-F FD 22-Feb-2008
The father sought the return of the two children to Poland after they had been brought to England by the mother. She said that she had come to seek work as a dentist, and had been unable to support the family in Poland. She said that her Polish . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.265915